Comment: Barnett's loss on the Marijuana case is the big question.

(See in situ)


Barnett's loss on the Marijuana case is the big question.

Does he have another argument? In the comment section I found this very interesting and informative reply:

++++++++++++++

Eugene Gorrin
Union, NJ

I am very hopeful that the Supreme Court will uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and its "individual mandate."

There is a strong possibility that the Court could uphold the health care law's constitutionality, not just with a 5-4 vote, but perhaps by a 7-2 vote with conservatives Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts supporting it.

The reason is the Court's 2005 decision in Gonzales v. Raich in which it upheld a federal ban on possession of marijuana grown in acordance with local law for personal, medicinal use - because the ban was part of a broader regulation of interstate commerce.

As the 6th Circuit wrote in upholding the constitutionlity of the health care mandate:

"If Congress could regulate Angel Raich when she grew marijuana on her property for self-consumption, indeed for self-medication, and if she could do so even when California law prohibited that marijuana from entering any state or national markets, it is difficult to see why Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care."

The opinion was authored by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a known conservative.

The DC Circuit defeated a challenge to the mandate in Seven-Sky v. Holder and upheld the act's constitutionality under the Commerce Clause. The opinion was written by Judge Lawrence Silberman, another well-known conservative jurist appointed by President Reagan.
+++++++++

Indeed, loosing that marijuana case does not sound good for us libertarians or the Obamacare unconstitutionality. So I hope Barnett has a new argument up his sleeve.

What it will come down to is amendment to the Constitution itself, drafted and supported by us and signed by 2/3rds of the States. That amendment will be something like this (but I am not sure it will restrain the wide open backwards interpretation of the Commerce Clause)

Liberty Amendment: Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.

Section 2. The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.

Section 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purpose of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.

Section 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts.

9 states have endorsed the Liberty Amendment. See more here: http://www.libertyamendment.com/

Ron Paul has supported it and likes it...(Dr. Paul has previously introduced this amendment in: 2007, 2005, 2003, 1999, and 1998).

Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820